Re: Dark Knight
 

See the beef I have with the people that say "anything goes" is that they say that until something "game-breaking" comes along. How do they know it's game breaking? Well because "they" insist it is.

In other words - you have no consistency and you begin to sound hypocritical... "Oh we can't ban things! It's futile! Why bother! (p.s. except for the MoD exploit)"

We can argue to the moon about what bug is game breaking and what bug isn't but in the end of the day the only way to have a consistent stance is to rely on one source to make rulings. As someone who runs multiple games I'm not going to create a booklet of what is or is not a valid bug. I'm going to go by the defacto standard - edi's buglist and the devs.

Of course people can create any house rules they want for any game.

Re: Dark Knight
 

Why is it inconsistent or hypocritical to have a higher tolerance for what ought to be banned than you do?

Re: Dark Knight
 

Considering how weak Air magic is with its high Path, Research, and gem costs, nerfing even an unintended benefit coded into the Mists of Deception spell is unfair and out of line.

Play the game as coded and patched. I never whined about the how powerful the Glamour races used to be, and I didn't whine when they got nerfed. Even obvious mistakes like the Black Dog Man summoning spell mix-up are just part of the game, and if you want to mod a variation of the game it is made to do that.

Just don't expect people to want to play your modded game. I'm playing this game instead of a tabletop game because I don't want to argue about rules.

Re: Dark Knight
 

When the developers say that MoD is an exploit, thats a sign that saying it is acceptabl is so much nonsense.

Re: Dark Knight
 

But what about archer decoys?

Re: Dark Knight
 

This is my fundamental objection that I touched on before, I don't have a lot of patience for trying to figure out what "acceptable" tactics are - if I can do it within the context of the game then it's fair play. If there's something that breaks the game it should be patched and by all means make a house rule not to do it until the patch is released (which is my position on MoD), but blacklisting everything that was "unintended" or "bugged" seems likely to accomplish nothing other than constant cries of "cheater!". There isn't much more frustrating than after the fact having somebody come invalidate a strategy you did which you didn't realize was blacklisted. I really, honestly, don't see any difference at all between clipping a script from Bogus and all the "tricks" I list above.

That being said, I understand your position Vel and don't mean to sound like I'm disparaging the great job you do adminning your servers, just offering my opinion on this topic on a slow day at work.

Re: Dark Knight
 

It's inconsistent and hypocritical to say "anything goes" and then start tacking on exceptions as you see fit.

Re: Dark Knight
 

I know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I'm just talking to pass the time as well.

Re: Dark Knight
 

See I can see that point of view and accept it because it is consistent.

I do think it could end up making a game *unfun* in certain circumstances however.

As a side note - I play tabletop board games as a hobby (I've played hundreds of differnt ones over just these last couple years) and I don't see near the amount of arguments over boardgame rules than about computer games. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Dark Knight
 

There are judgment calls everywhere, I don't think they make anyone hypocritical.

You don't *really* ban everything on the bug list in your games, do you (is it even possible)?

Also, you ban some stuff that isn't on the bug list. You do this according to some standard you have, which is acceptable (& I enjoy playing in your games, and always abide by house rules).

If someone else's standard is "anything goes except for MoD, because it alone among bugs uniquely breaks the combat rout system" why is that hypocritical?